Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Way2L8AND1 t1_j3029um wrote

$200,00 cap is ridiculous quite frankly. Otherwise I am glad to see some help coming to those who need it.

A couple making over $3800 a WEEK do not need $900 in heating assistance.

19

ZeekLTK t1_j308dc3 wrote

Better to overshoot and give it to some people who don't "need" it than undershoot and not give it to people who actually are struggling.

People making near, but under the cap, are likely paying more in taxes as it is, so more of a wash once you get up there anyways.

42

PGids t1_j31an9f wrote

Being unmarried and no kids really blows when you like overtime.

I was monumentally closer to grossing 80 than I was six figures, and between the two governments I paid taxes too they felt entitled to almost 22k of it

8

TarantinoFan23 t1_j32qlw8 wrote

They wanted you to do something with the money. But you choose not to. Now they get to decide what to do with it.

1

PGids t1_j336e0m wrote

You mean other than maxing out every pre-tax contribution my employer offers and buying into their supplemental life insurance? If slam more in my 401k if I wasn’t trying to put cash in my savings

There’s no justification for taxing a person making ~$30 an hour $500-600 a week because I’m trying to sock some cash away and get ahead on shit

0

TarantinoFan23 t1_j337m84 wrote

Precisely. They punish saving the money. You either pay tax or do something like start a charity. Or take off work, lower your taxes and volunteer.

0

TimothyOilypants t1_j33pcx2 wrote

Or just shut up and pay your taxes because it's good for civilization. This American preoccupation with avoiding taxation and mutal aid is fucking obnoxious...

2

PGids t1_j33xqn5 wrote

When the federal government stops doing shit like spending 50 million on boosting tourism in Tunisia I’ll stop bitching.

I have no problem with mutual aid, I take a lot of problem with completely braindead spending.

Cut the spending, up taxes on the gaggle of people that don’t pay shit, but stop squeezing the little guy to death and threatening to ruin his life if he doesn’t cough it up

1

TimothyOilypants t1_j340wbc wrote

Ignoring your myopic and likely racist resistance to foreign aid; even if we increase corporate tax rates (which we should) the individual marginal tax rate in the US is still one of the lowest among rich 1st world countries.

Anyone over $50k should be paying at least 40% full stop.

Unless you are making less than $9,000 annually you ARE NOT "the little guy" in global terms. Stop whining about your life of privilege.

1

[deleted] t1_j32nvvy wrote

[deleted]

2

ZeekLTK t1_j32ok5e wrote

It costs to figure out stuff like that. I bet it would cost more than $450 for them to figure out that you specifically “don’t need” $450.

Therefore, they actually are saving money by just giving you $450 and not paying to determine that you don’t need it.

2

[deleted] t1_j32ovtl wrote

[deleted]

0

ZeekLTK t1_j32r49n wrote

No, all they figured out was that you make less than the limit they set (which is why they did it that way, it was the easiest way). You are saying it should be distributed based on who “needs” it the most.

“People who need the most get the most, etc.” That can’t be determined just by looking at someone’s income, so whether you realize it or not, you are talking about hiring a team to design and implement some algorithm that takes into account various metrics, which would have to be collected, in order to decide “this person needs $550, this other person needs $345, this other person needs $120, this other person needs $0, etc.” The only way that would actually be “more efficient” is if you completely disregard the cost of setting it up. But if you factor in how much work that would be, it does end up being cheaper to just give the benefit to everyone (or at least, like in this case: a group with a very large cutoff) and being okay with the fact that some people who “don’t need it” will wind up getting it.

3

[deleted] t1_j32rh7i wrote

[deleted]

1

Sufficient_Risk1684 t1_j32s7w4 wrote

Except alot of people making 10k a year live in free or subsided house and pay nothing for heating.....

1

ZeekLTK t1_j340nwb wrote

But again, you're only looking at income and that's not the best measurement.

Like let's say there are two families, one who makes $95k/year and the other who makes $65k/year. You are saying just based on that, the $65k/year family needs more assistance.

But what if the $95k/year family has 5 young kids who are all in sports and dance and some in childcare and the family's average annual expenses is about $90k/year whereas the $65k/year family is just a couple with no kids and they only average annual expenses of around $45k/year? The $95k/year family only has about a $5k buffer from living beyond their means whereas the $65k/year family has a $20k buffer, so it seems like the $95k family probably needs assistance more than the $65k one in this specific case, but how would that be determined unless there was some way to collect and process all that information (which would be very costly to do)?

And even if you had a way to collect and process all that info, would it still be able to make such a determination? It seems unlikely, so giving everyone something like this is probably still the best way to make sure it gets to as many people who need it as possible.

1

[deleted] t1_j32p5xi wrote

Republicans wanted to raise the income limits. Dems wanted it lower but republicans negotiated it higher. They had to allow it to get this passed. Also if you really want to feel sick, take a look at the Facebook posts from some of the Republican senators who originally voted against this. Their constituents were essentially commenting that they shouldn’t allow this to pass if it was only going to help the poor.

2

HIncand3nza t1_j31aroe wrote

The cap makes sense in my opinion because it is a tax return where they slapped “heating assistance” on the label. It is fundamentally the same as the check this past summer.

Calling it heating assistance is more to make it seem like the state government is doing something about high heating costs, which they can’t really control.

On a return of taxes the constant amount among the tax brackets most benefits those in the lowest bracket. Someone making 30,000 is getting like 20% of their state taxes back. Whereas someone making 100k is getting roughly 5% of their taxes back.

8

Way2L8AND1 t1_j31kmlk wrote

5% of $100,000 is $5,000... 20% of $30,000 is $6,000. What on earth is your weird math equation for again ? So you are saying because someone with $100,000 got back $1000 less than someone with $30000 that means they are equally in need ?
This may be the worst point I've ever heard. Throwing money at inflation does NOT help inflation.

−7

HIncand3nza t1_j31nheh wrote

Okay so let’s assume your state income tax rate is 7% of your gross income.

If you make $30,000 you would pay $2100 in taxes. If you receive $450 back, you just received 21% of your taxes back. To do the calculation:

0.07 x 30000 = 2100

450/2100=0.21

0.21x100= 21

Now your homework assignment is to repeat that for 100,000

Also your point about people of different incomes not being equally in need of $450 is irrelevant. The state is returning money that both people paid in. It feels nice to say “you make 100k you don’t need $450!”. But consider the other side, “ I make 100k, I paid more taxes than you, so I deserve a larger payout” and suddenly the equal $450 seems very fair

8

Diz_McSquirrelz t1_j31yu7w wrote

>Now your homework assignment is to repeat that for 100,000

Savage

7

Way2L8AND1 t1_j31o8pw wrote

Ok so now you have completely changed the math equation, and still make no good point.

So... You are saying... Based on this math, That someone making $100,000 a year DOES in fact need $450 in government assistance ? Agreed to disagree. The cap is too high and wasted money. And someone that makes $100,000 and paid in $7000 (your math) does not need a kickback.

−9

HIncand3nza t1_j31ogv2 wrote

It isn’t government assistance though is it. It is funded by a budget surplus, thus it is basically a tax return

12

[deleted] t1_j33iju4 wrote

[deleted]

1

Way2L8AND1 t1_j33q86b wrote

Ohhh. So 5% and 7% are the same....

Thanks for clearing that up. So someone making 6 figures ARE in need like someone making 20k.

Are you both using Trump's calculator ?

Hell maybe the cap should be people making under $2.5m ? That $450 may be the saving grace for them.

0

[deleted] t1_j33reqi wrote

[deleted]

1

Way2L8AND1 t1_j33yi61 wrote

Tell me you still live with your Mom without telling me....... 🙄 Never had a real job right ? Never made over $20k a year. You think the solution to the highest inflation in 40 years is to hand out $$ to couples that make a million dollars every 5 years.

0

[deleted] t1_j33z8vm wrote

[deleted]

0

Way2L8AND1 t1_j33zlbb wrote

Thank your Mom for paying the bills and sit down. Let her know that thanks to morons like you this inflation will be here to stay.

−1

Antnee83 t1_j32wexn wrote

I get it, but I think this is better than the way most assistance programs are set up, where you basically have to be living in a cardboard box to get help.

1

Way2L8AND1 t1_j32ws1x wrote

Agreed. But this cap is nearly double what it needs to be, which translates to a lot of money unnecessarily handed out that could go to better things. I'm all for helping those in need. But this cap limit is plain stupid.

0